Ravindra Singh, J.@mdashThis application has been filed by the applicant Rajesh Singh alias Pullu Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 485 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 302, 325, 504 and 506, I.P.C., P. S. Jafrabad, district Jaunpur. The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Ram Dular Singh on 17.7.2006 at 2.20 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 17.7.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. The distance of the Police Station was about three kilometers from the alleged place of occurrence. The applicant and eleven other co-accused are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that one Amit, the nephew was beaten by the co-accused Tapan, Ajit Singh alias Bhuwar and Pintu on 16.7.2006 in Jafrabad market, its information was given to the Police Station concerned on 16.7.2006. Due to this enmity on 17.7.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. the applicant and 11 other co-accused persons armed with pistols, country made pistols, danda and hasia came at the door of the first informant and caused injuries on the persons who were present there. At that time they were hurling the abuses also. The applicant, co-accused Avnish, Praveen and Santosh were armed with pistols and country made pistols, co-accused Sanju was armed with hasia and remaining co-accused were armed with lathi and dandas, at the time of occurrence Manoj, Sanjay and many other persons of the village went towards the place of occurrence and they threw bricks and stones at the miscreants, consequently they were compelled to fled away from the place of occurrence leaving three motorcycles there. Rana Pratap Singh and Shiv Kumar Singh had received gun shot injuries, their condition was very serious, they were sent to hospital. The F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. In the said incident the injured Rana Pratap Singh succumbed to his injuries on 21.7.2006 at 10.20 p.m. at Singh Medical and Research Center Private Limited, Teliyabagh, Varanasi. Thereafter Section 302, I.P.C. was also added. The medical examination report of the deceased Rana Pratap Singh shows that he had received multiple gun shot wounds in area of 14 c.m. x 13 c.m., one big wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. cavity deep, lacerated in aspect of epigastric region and abdomen, multiple wound of entrance 0.2 c.m. in diameter. The injured Shiv Kumar Singh had received three injuries, in which injury No. 1 was incised wound, injury No. 2 was contusion and injury No. 3 was complain of pain. Injured Abhishek Singh sustained three injuries, in which injury No. 1 lacerated wound, injury No. 2 was abrasion and injury No. 3 was contusion. Injured Randeep Singh sustained only one lacerated wound, injured Ravindra Kumar Singh has sustained four injuries, in which injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 were incised wounds and injury No. 4 was complain of pain. Injured Pradeep Kumar Singh has sustained one lacerated wound and injured Amit Kumar Singh has sustained two injuries, in which injury No. 1 is incised wound and injury No. 2 was contusion.
2. Heard Sri J. S. Sengar and Ajit Kumar Singh Solanki, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Sri Rajul Bhargava and Sri P. C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the complainant.
3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the prosecution story is false, concocted and highly improbable as alleged occurrence was not taken place as alleged by the prosecution. In F.I.R. the names of only two injured persons have been disclosed, the name of other victims have not been disclosed in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. has been lodged after medical examination of Rana Pratap Singh, Shiv Kumar Singh, Abhishek Singh and Amit Kumar Singh. It also belies the whole prosecution story. According to the F.I.R. there is a general role of firing and causing the injuries attributed to the applicant and other co-accused persons. There is no specific role attributed to the applicant. But the first informant has specified that the shot discharged by the applicant hit at the abdomen of the deceased, it is highly improbable because it is a alleged that the deceased was caught hold by the co-accused Anoop Singh and it was not possible for the first informant to see that which of the shot hit the deceased. The deceased Rana Pratap Singh died on 21.7.2006 whereas he had sustained injury on 17.7.2006 but his statement was not recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure nor his statement was recorded by any Magistrate. The applicant was taken to the custody by the Police on 8.8.2006, the recovery of one country made pistol of 12 bore and one cartridges of 12 bore was planted alleging that it was recovered from the open place having easy existence. The statement of the injured Shiv Kumar Singh was also recorded by the I.O. on 16.8.2006 which is delayed statement. He also supported in the statement of the first informant, alleging that the fire arm injury was caused to the deceased by the applicant and the agitated mob of the villagers damaged the motorcycles and the house of the applicant. Thereafter the statements of some other witnesses were recorded on 23.9.2006 which are also delayed statements without having any explanation. It is further contended that there is a cross-version also. The F.I.R. of the applicant''s side was not registered deliberately by the local police, subsequently an application was given to the S.S.P., Jaunpur even then no cross F.I.R. was registered. The cross F.I.R. was registered in pursuance of the order passed under Sections 156(3), Cr.P.C., in Case Crime No. 485A of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 379 and 427, I.P.C., P.S. Jafrabad, district Jaunpur on 10.8.2006 at 10.30 a.m. According to the cross-version of 17.7.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. the accused persons namely deceased Rana Pratap Singh and others armed with country made pistols, lathi and other weapons at the house of the applicant and ransacked the house, when it was objected by mother and wife of the applicant, they were assaulted, the co-accused broken the Fridge, colour T.V., damaged the Maruti Car and threw away the foodgrains. Sanjay Singh, Amit Kumar Singh and Sanjeev tried to intervene, they were also assaulted, Sony fired at Sanjay Singh but he suddenly sat down which hit the deceased Rana Pratap Singh. Smt. Sunita, the wife of the applicant was medically examined on 18.7.2006 at 11.15 a.m. at District Hospital, Jaunpur, she had sustained five injuries. Smt. Jadawati, the mother of the applicant was also medically examined on 18.7.2006 at 11.45 a.m., she had sustained three injuries. Sanjeev was ask medically examined on 18.7.2006, he had sustained three injuries. Similarly Amit Kumar Singh also medically examined on 17.7.2006, he had sustained four injuries. The first informant and others were aggressor, they have not explained the injuries received by the applicant''s side. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence, but has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ill will of the first informant.
4. In reply to the above contention it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the applicant is the main accused who has caused the fire arm injuries by a country made pistol on the person of the deceased. The alleged occurrence has taken place at the door of the first informant, it is broad day light incident, F.I.R. has been promptly lodged. The deceased has been clearly injured in the firing when the villagers came for the rescue who threw the bricks and stones on the accused persons. Under the compelling circumstances the applicant and other co-accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence leaving their motorcycles at the alleged place of occurrence. After commission of the alleged occurrence the mob of the villagers damaged the property of the accused also. The recovery memo shows that the accused persons have left seven motorcycles out of which four were recovered from the place of occurrence and remaining three motorcycles were recovered from a field adjoining to the place of occurrence. The alleged offence has been committed by the applicant and other co-accused persons in a barbarous manner and in case the applicant and other co-accused persons were having the right of private defence. The gravity of the offence is too much and applicant is main accused, in case he is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence.
5. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned Counsel for the complainant, considering the role of the applicant, the gravity of the offence and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is rejected.
6. Accordingly this application is rejected.
